View Single Post
Old
12-11-2004, 02:35 PM
  #15
myrocketsgotcracked
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
A better solution to get the Owners knocked off the Hard Cap would be a big rollback as the NHLPA just offered . combined with small salary % increase Cap per year based on the lower contact amount... Lets say 2 % per year for example on new contracts for ease of math..

Lets take Pronger for example:

Current Salary $10 Million

Apply the rollback (25 %)

New Salary $7.5 Million

Apply the 2% maximum increase allowed in salary based on new base (7.5 mil) in any current year

So after 5 years the most Pronger would be able to earn ( 2% x 5 years = 10%) ....7.5 Million + 10 % ($750,000)

New Salary max $ 8.25 Million after 5 years

(which could be the length of this new CBA agreement rather than the proposed 6 years)

So Pronger will make from 7.5 mil to 8.25 mil in the next 5 years ..now cap rookie entry level contracts as well as discussed..

HOW MUCH MORE COST CERTAINTY would owners need to tie Player Salaries to Revenue .. ???

They will know today what any given player could make for the next five years and plan accordingly on spending..

Look I can do it without a Hard Cap or Luxury Tax required .. because I don't really believe in either .. and the MAX a player can earn, will eliminate bidding wars and escalating Salaries in the future, and for the same money offered by multiple teams the player as a UFA could chose where (lifestyle) he wanted to play, and the richer teams are not punished by any CAP TYPE or penalty for running a better business, and it totally controls GM's and owners over spending habits.

The NHL better get me in there to the negotiating table so all those Knuckleheads on both sides can give the fans hockey again ...
i thought the nhlpa said they will not accept anything with a cap. and it kind of ignored the "free market" stuff that the nhlpa wants too, by placing a cap on how much a player can earn on his next contract. sure your proposal sounds good (as long as the cap in % increase is low) but i doubt the nhlpa will accept anything like that.